The Religious Thread - Page 11 - ehMac.ca
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Jan 18th, 2010, 03:13 PM   #101
Honourable Citizen
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ontario
Posts: 2,273
Quote:
Neither attacked nor defended abortion. I call it a smoke screen because anti-abortionists willingly vote for politicians who have been bought and sold by the Military Industrial Complex
.
I'd vote where I could save the most lives.
-1.36 million died in iraq in 6 years. ANTIWAR.COM claims (Now thats probably as inflated a number as your going to get given the source.)
-roughly 1.2 million die each year in US abortion clinics alone
Besides its just business as usual with Obama except he's promised to spend more tax payer funds to kill more in abortions in other countries. He's also trying his hardest to eliminate any and all restriction on the practice.

Quote:
They vote for them because they supposedly oppose abortion even though those same politicians cheerfully promote the slaughter of living women and children.
Don't ever tell an expectant mother that the child in her womb isn't living.

Quote:
As to abortion I firmly believe that any changes in laws should be put to a referendum. As women would suffer much greater impact than men from such changes, only women could vote. If you can get 75% of the nations women to agree with a particular change in the law then it could be enacted but only as presented in the referendum. Further a second confirming referendum should be held during the next general election as a safety valve.
I'd agree if the unborn children being killed had a vote as well to determine their fate.

Cheers
MacGuiver
MacGuiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old Jan 18th, 2010, 03:46 PM   #102
peek-a-boo
 
groovetube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,869
ah. The righteous moral screaming lunatic right, that wants EVERYBODY, to live by their rules, their bible, and if anyone dares have different beliefs by golly they'll get a rifle and blow that abortion doctor's head off. Don't dare tell them different, or you might get shot too. They're unstoppable, and it doesn't occur to them that perhaps people. the majority of people, simply aren't interested in their beliefs, no matter how right, those people think they are.

That's one religion, we can all do without.
__________________
using: 2013 retina 15" MBP 16gigs of ram/1tb ssd, iphone5, 2 appleTV 3s.
groovetube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18th, 2010, 03:47 PM   #103
Honourable Citizen
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Fredericton, NB
Posts: 6,415
Send a message via AIM to bryanc
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGuiver View Post
.
I'd agree if the unborn children being killed had a vote as well to determine their fate.
Would you agree that a parasite ought to have a say in wether someone has it removed?

An embryo may be a genetically distinct entity, but it is wholly dependent on the maternal metabolism for its support. If the mother chooses to provide this support, that's great. But if the mother chooses to withhold this support, the embryo is out of luck.

Just like someone in need of a blood transfusion cannot compel another to provide the needed blood, the rights of the unborn do not trump the rights of the mother. By carrying a pregnancy to term a woman chooses to provide physiological support for another, at considerable risk to herself. While we can admire and encourage that choice, we cannot compel it.
bryanc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18th, 2010, 04:25 PM   #104
Honourable Citizen
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ontario
Posts: 2,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryanc View Post
Would you agree that a parasite ought to have a say in wether someone has it removed?

An embryo may be a genetically distinct entity, but it is wholly dependent on the maternal metabolism for its support. If the mother chooses to provide this support, that's great. But if the mother chooses to withhold this support, the embryo is out of luck.

Just like someone in need of a blood transfusion cannot compel another to provide the needed blood, the rights of the unborn do not trump the rights of the mother. By carrying a pregnancy to term a woman chooses to provide physiological support for another, at considerable risk to herself. While we can admire and encourage that choice, we cannot compel it.
This is an example of that sad simplification Chesterton spoke of.
You're basically arguing an unborn child is no more, no less deserving of life than a common tape worm?
By that logic, why not have open season on infants up to 2 or 3 years old. The child continues being a parasite on the mother for years after birth since without her support it would die in days. The only difference is location.

Edit:
Seems like some intellectual has already taken this argument to its next logical conclusion.
Quote:
On Sunday, November 2 1997, the New York Times carried an article by Steven Pinker, a professor of psychology at the august Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Pinker seriously suggests infanticide as a legal practice.

Pinker argues as follows: Killing a newborn infant should not be penalized as harshly as killing an older child. "To a biologist, birth is as arbitrary a milestone as any other," Pinker says. Pinker says babies aren't real people because they don't have "an ability to reflect upon (themselves) as a continuous locus of consciousness, to form and savor plans for the future, to dread death and to express the choice not to die. And there's the rub: Our immature neonates don't possess these traits any more than mice do."
Cheers
MacGuiver
MacGuiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18th, 2010, 04:42 PM   #105
Honourable Citizen
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Fredericton, NB
Posts: 6,415
Send a message via AIM to bryanc
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGuiver View Post
By that logic, why not have open season on infants up to 2 or 3 years old. The child continues being a parasite on the mother for years after birth since without her support it would die in days. The only difference is location.
And oh what a difference location makes. Once the organism is extrauterine, the options of state protection, foster homes and adoption become viable. There's still not much one can do about parents that don't take good care of their children apart from taking the children away. That's not an option with regard to embryos.

But this argument effectively boils down to one's sovereignty over one's own body. If you support legislation outlawing abortion, you are effectively saying that the state has the right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies, and that it is acceptable to force certain individuals to make physical sacrifices for the benefit of others.

While I would very much like to live in a world where no abortions ever occurred, I cannot accept that the state should be allowed to dictate what individuals do with their own bodies or who has to make what sacrifices for who.
bryanc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18th, 2010, 04:48 PM   #106
Honourable Citizen
 
Macfury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Toronto Proper
Posts: 28,205
Quote:
And oh what a difference location makes. Once the organism is extrauterine, the options of state protection, foster homes and adoption become viable.
So viability in such fashion that the state could protect it creates the dividing line?
__________________
"My life is my own."

MacPro, 1,1 3.0 GHZ
Macfury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18th, 2010, 05:11 PM   #107
Honourable Citizen
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Fredericton, NB
Posts: 6,415
Send a message via AIM to bryanc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macfury View Post
So viability in such fashion that the state could protect it creates the dividing line?
To the extent that we have to have a dividing line and can't recognize the continuum of development, yes, the possibility of the state or others taking on the care of the unwanted child makes its death unnecessary and therefore unjustifiable.
bryanc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18th, 2010, 05:49 PM   #108
Indigent Academic
 
rgray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the Gulag of E ON
Posts: 6,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryanc View Post
To the extent that we have to have a dividing line and can't recognize the continuum of development, yes, the possibility of the state or others taking on the care of the unwanted child makes its death unnecessary and therefore unjustifiable.
Enter the population problem.... I don't say this lightly or glibbly. Sooner or later, there will be a global conference on how to address the problem of population and the outcomes won't be pretty.
__________________
"not all those who wander are lost….." j.r.r. tolkien
rgray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18th, 2010, 06:13 PM   #109
peek-a-boo
 
groovetube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,869
the religious right generally turns to the ridiculous to support their beliefs. When the huge outcry over same sex marriages, I saw many predict we would allow humans to marry their pets. They'll gladly provide links and examples to support this.

Now we'll hear how young people, will be allowed to be killed.

They can't support their beliefs with logical thought, so they'll turn to utter lunacy, to enforce their beliefs.

I don't have any problem, with anyone, or group, who decides they believe in something, and they want to adhere to their beliefs. However, I think there is a real severe problem, that should be dealt with strictly, when a group of people believe they should be able to enforce their beliefs on others, and actually use terror to do so. Amazingly enough, usually these groups, who have used terror tactics (shooting abortion doctors), will be the first up to yell and scream about other, 'terrorists'.
__________________
using: 2013 retina 15" MBP 16gigs of ram/1tb ssd, iphone5, 2 appleTV 3s.
groovetube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18th, 2010, 06:16 PM   #110
Citizen
 
MazterCBlazter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,377
.

Last edited by MazterCBlazter; Oct 14th, 2012 at 07:20 AM.
MazterCBlazter is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mod Log Chealion Info Centre 7 May 25th, 2006 01:18 PM
Vexel's Intel iMac thread Vexel Anything Mac 54 Mar 30th, 2006 10:38 PM
Need to be able to edit thread titles again gmark2000 Info Centre 0 Jan 28th, 2006 11:10 PM
P4 vs G5 vs G3 jfpoole Anything Mac 41 Jan 12th, 2006 03:55 PM
apple removing thread about lower ram failure groovetube Anything Mac 33 Aug 10th, 2005 11:27 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:04 AM.



Copyright © 1999 - 2012, ehMac.ca All rights reserved. ehMac is not affiliated with Apple Inc. Mac, iPod, iTunes, iPhone, Apple TV are trademarks of Apple Inc. Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2

Tribe.ca: Urban living in Toronto!